CONTRIBUTIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
by non-governmental
organizations of Latin America
and the Caribbean to the post 2020
global biodiversity framework

CBD
ALLIANCE

BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
CONTENT

INTRODUCTION 03
WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION 03
MISSION 04
GUIDING PRINCIPLES 05

GENERAL AREAS OF DISCUSSION 07

1. Loss of habitat, biodiversity and ecosystemic services 07
2. Integration of biodiversity into other sectors 08
3. Resource mobilization and financing 08
4. Human rights approach to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity 09
5. Implementation and compliance mechanism 10
6. Communication, awareness-raising and information 11

OTHER ISSUES 13
Technological arrangements 13

ANNEX 14
List of participants 14

BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
INTRODUCTION
Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN) together with the CBD Alliance (CBDA), thanks
to the support provided by DOB Ecology (“Humedales sin Fronteras/Wetlands without Borders”
Programme), the IUCN National Committee of The Netherlands (International Union for the Con-
servation of Nature) and the Pew Charitable Trusts, convened the workshop “Contributions by
non-governmental organizations of Latin America and the Caribbean to the post-2020 global bio-
diversity framework”. This workshop took place at Lafayette Hotel in the city of Buenos Aires,
Argentina, on April 23rd and 24th 2019.

The workshop’s objective was to provide concrete contributions and recommendations to the State
Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) regarding the consultation process on the
post- 2020 global biodiversity framework to be adopted at the 15° Conference of the Parties (COP).

Prior to actually meeting at Argentina’s capital, there was a pre-workshop stage. Firstly, an on-
line questionnaire was drafted to be filled out by the organizations involved and to be used as
a conceptual and practical framework for the workshop. It approached the priority issues to be
discussed and surveyed points of view, contributions, suggestions and observations. Several ref-
erence documents and context material regarding CBD, its agenda and related processes were
shared. In turn, on April 15th an informative webinar on the Convention and the post 2020 process
was held.

WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION
Representatives of 12 countries in the region took part in the workshop (Paraguay, Brazil, Boliv-
ia, Guatemala, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Panama, Mexico and Argentina). They
came from 31 diverse non-governmental organizations (NGO) that work on issues related to the
CBD’s agenda.

The event’s dynamic involved working around thematic modules, holding discussions in groups at
first, followed by a plenary in which groups shared the contents of their exchange. The opening of
the workshop took place on Tuesday, April 23rd, and it was in charge of Ana Di Pangracio, FARN
Deputy Director. After that, Gadir Lavadenz, with CBDA, shared an overview of CBD’s processes.
In the first module, the results of the online questionnaire were presented and strategic informa-
tion was highlighted. After that, the strategic role of organizations as agents of environmental
transformation was discussed, following an activity in which the SWOT (Strenghts, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats) matrix was used to portray the predominant situation of the biodiver-
sity agenda. This activity was complemented by another one which consisted in Thinking (concep-
tually), Feeling (emotionally) and Doing (Action) in relation with the work at individual level and
the work as a network.

After that, work was carried out following a number of large areas of discussion prioritized by the
group work dynamic. The group members regularly changed so as to generate exchanges among
different actors and diversify the approaches throughout every debate. Every thematic discussion
was guided through questions that had been prepared before by the organizers, and in every
working table there was a member of the organization and/or a facilitator to sort doubts and
guide the work around the CBD framework.

Discussions on large thematic areas concluded on the second day of the workshop in the morning,
on Wednesday April 24th. Later, groups shared experiences or practices related to CBD framework
that could be replicated/escalated, to then turn into the mission and guiding principles of a post

03 BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
2020 global biodiversity framework. The workshop concluded with the creation of an action plan
by the NGO present thinking about the post-workshop and reflections on what had happened over
these two days.

Below there is a detail of the key elements discussed, proposals and recommendations made around
the mission, guiding principles and six large areas of discussion identified by the region for the
post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Besides, it is requested that these areas of discussion have
corresponding thematic working groups within the adoption process of the post 2020 framework.

MISSION
Decision 14/30 adopted during COP 14 in Egypt establishes that the post-2020 global biodiversity
framework must go hand in hand with an inspiring and motivational mission for 2030. During
the workshop, by sharing the 2011-2020 Strategic Plan mission, the organizations involved in the
workshop showed great concern about the current plan’s level of progress and biodiversity’s cur-
rent situation. Next, there is a description of visions regarding these issues and input to be taken
into account.

Many participants who for many years have been working passionately and on a daily basis on
biodiversity, environment and other issues intrinsically related to them were outraged at the fact
that after 25 years of the entry into force of CBD its goals have not been reached and biodiversity
destruction is deepening.

The crisis is very serious, the way in which people are sweeping natural resources is atrocious, to
the point of infringing the rights of people and communities. Latin America and the Caribbean is
a region where some of the most diverse countries in the world can be found. There is, therefore,
pain caused by the loss and degradation of their natural and cultural heritage, and in general, by
the destruction of the environment and the lack of protection of biodiversity at global level. The
future is being destroyed.

We are part of a whole, including the environment and nature. Not only is nature defended, but
life itself. Humanity’s survival and everyone’s well-being relies on biodiversity; a well-being that
cannot be measured only from an economistic perspective. An ecocentric narrative should be
pursued and the antropocentric narrative should be abandoned.

It was highlighted that there is greater awareness among people about the importance of taking
care of biodiversity and the environment; that there is plenty of awareness work with children and
young people in which it necessary to continue focusing, given that they are present and future,
and they are already promoting new consumption habits.

Although there is concern about the lack of progress over the past few years and the fact that
CBD’s mission is still far away, there was constructive criticism at the workshop. The relevance of
multilateralism was highlighted. However, it was pointed out that this does not conflict with the
fact that CBD should grant responsibility to every State Party to avoid “it belongs to everyone and
nobody takes responsibility”. Local perspectives should be better served, and general strategies
should be adapted to every region by matching agendas so that the Convention does not become
an empty box. In this regard, governance from the civil society becomes necessary in the territo-
ries fighting against interests’ co-optation at the States.

Many positive aspects regarding CBD were brought up. It was acknowledged that the situation
would be far worse without the Convention, but progress has not been proportional to the advance-

04 BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
ment of threats. There is an urgent need to keep working tirelessly and to take the mission into prac-
tice. It was suggested that CBD should “have more teeth” to enforce compliance with the targets.

Besides, it was pointed out that with urgency also comes an opportunity, and that includes our
region. Organizations, people and communities have shown that there are different ways of doing
things in the territories, in harmony with nature. There are many practices that take care of the
environment and that can be escalated.

There was a call to work more among Parties for the conservation of shared biomes. A narrowed
vision (“garden vision”) should be left aside, to be replaced by a holistic view. The importance of
working through alliances was underscored, work should be done in a coordinated way in order
to stop working in isolation. Work should be crossboarder, multidimensional and in cooperation,
which entails a learning process.

Implementation of the CBD should be reconsidered and improved significantly. Parties must take
up responsibility, take on the political decision of saving biodiversity through appropriate and
effective actions. Double standards must be done away with. One thing is what is said to be done
in national reports describing the progress in complying with CBD’s goals, and another thing is
what is actually done.

CBD offers a political arena on which to raise one´s voice to claim for the progress needed to
actually protect biodiversity by innovating and raising issues that are not on the agenda. The
role of civil society organizations in this regard is very important. Along these lines, concern was
shown about the fact that corporate power keeps co-opting several areas, and that the civic area
is shrinking. CBD must make sure that this does not happen within its framework, and it must con-
tinue promoting a greater involvement of civil society.

Deep concern was shown at the ever-growing risks for people and communities which put them-
selves on the line and risk their lives to defend biodiversity. In Latin America and the Caribbean
people die defending biodiversity, and many others suffer various attacks and hostilities about
which there is no record. This has to end.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The following guiding principles have been pointed out, without any specific order of precedence,
as the necessary ones for a post-2020 global biodiversity framework:

• Having a planetary, integral vision;

• Respecting all life, being ecocentric rather than antropocentric;

• Being inclusive;

• Have empathy;

• Applying a precautionary and non-regression approach;

• Focus on work and actions with young people (intergenerationality principle);

• Approaching underlying structural causes of biodiversity loss that can be pointed out
clearly (global inequity, lack of control over corporative power and transnational corpo-

05 BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
 rations´ activities, the impact of industrial production and consumption economies based
on fossil fuels, etc.;

• Political commitment;

• Being transparent;

• Providing participation methods that involve a territorial rationale;

• Guaranteeing access to reliable information, that is easy to understand and time and eval-
uation sensitive and that allows for informed participation;

• Articulating with other sectors and promote changes in consumption habits;

• Strengthened articulation with other biodiversity-related conventions and processes such

as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs);

• Not allowing green make-up nor nature financialization;

• Stopping genetic resources appropriation, ensuring fair and equitable sharing;

• Applying a human rights approach to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;

• Respecting and protecting indigenous peoples and local communities´ rights, including
their right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent;

• Respecting and protecting land ownership rights and safe and equal access to land and
territories;

• Respecting and protecting traditional knowledge and ancestral wisdom;

• Integrating a gender equality perspective;

• Recognizing, including and protecting people and communities that defend the environ-
ment and human rights;

• Integrating different approaches and cosmovisions such as the nature’s rights approach;

• Developing empathic, clear and accessible communication;

• Measurable and realistic goals, with simple criteria and indicators that allows them to be
put into practice and owned by Parties;

• Unequivocal concepts and operative definitions free of vagueness, ambiguity or multiple

meanings in order to avoid terminological confusions;

• Applying a systemic approach;

• Rejecting technological solutions that keep us away from deep structural changes and
that present new threats to the environment and the peoples of the world;

• Ensuring benefits for all people by taking into account the well-being of humanity as well
as the well-being of other forms of life.

06 BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
GENERAL AREAS OF DISCUSSION

1. Loss of habitat, biodiversity and ecosystemic services

Deforestation and destruction of other ecosystems due to the expansion of the agricultural fron-
tier and urbanization, large-scale mining and energy projects, agrotoxics, industrial pollution
must be stopped at once; including invasive exotic species (prevention, control and eradication).

Every ecosystem’s and territory’s carrying capacity must be respected, as well as their aptitude for
use, which should constitute a fundamental criterion in decision-making processes. The environ-
mental territorial planning is a useful tool in this regard.

CBD must make greater efforts to support agroecology and family farming, which are the founda-
tions of food safety and sovereignty of the peoples.

Parties should take immediate and concrete actions to change consumption logics, especially in
developed countries but also in urban areas where the greatest demand for resources is generated.

Indigenous peoples and local communities are biodiversity custodians, therefore, respecting their
rights is directly related to the protection of biodiversity. Territory management by local commu-
nities and indigenous peoples must be recognized and respected, since it is a key part of self-de-
termination. Also, ancestral knowledge and wisdom must be respected and incorporated.

The loss of habitat and biodiversity, whether directly or indirectly, threatens and violates individ-
ual, collective and diffuse human rights. CBD must see to this fact and contribute to preventing
these infringements of rights.

In this regard, independent actors should be involved by means of, for instance, the creation of an
observatory or committee that develops indexes of and monitors the true causes of biodiversity
loss, including corporate power and consumption habit and logics change, especially in devel-
oped countries.

It is recommended to significantly increase the number of marine protected areas on the next
strategic plan. However, emphasis must be laid on managing these areas and allocating resources
properly for their comprehensive management. The non-regression principle must also be ap-
plied to avoid setbacks in terms of protected areas (reductions, loss of status, etc.) as well as in
general to CBD’s decisions and processes.

It is acknowledged that thanks to the Convention, there have been break-throughs in the creation
of marine protected areas. However, greater emphasis should be laid on oceans and seas, since
the negative impacts they are subject to exceed protection, conservation or sustainable use mea-
sures by far. The number and percentage of marine protected areas must be increased by 2030,
including their creation on the high seas.

Parties have to develop a concrete action plan and roadmap to reduce threats to coral reef eco-
systems -ecosystems highly vulnerable to climate change- taking into account the little progress
in the Aichi Target 10. The same concern was expressed about the Andean glacial and periglacial
areas, declining in the region due to global warming.

SBSTTA and CBD in general are recommended to conduct a specific evaluation of Aichi Target 5,
including aspects related to such target which are mentioned in this document.

07 BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
In order to avoid biodiversity loss and its consequences, the goals set forth must be complied with.
To do this, there must be compliance and pressure mechanisms involving a broad range of actors.

2. Integration of biodiversity into other sectors

It is recommended to analyze and take action to evaluate the impacts of the incorporation of
aspects related to biodiversity in the financial sector. Extra care should be given to avoid falling
into nature’s monetization or financialization through schemes that do not imply true structural
changes. The integration of biodiversity cannot be used as a green makeup strategy, its integra-
tion is to respect it. Therefore, extractive activities such as mining or those related to oil should be
prohibited and regulated in great detail because they are not sustainable.

Allowing and establishing “sacrifice zones”, areas that can be sacrificed tradewise cannot be ad-
mitted since they are considered unproductive at an economic level, without caring for their eco-
system services or the biodiversity that inhabits the area and depends on it. Unrestrictive use is
allowed, as well as the area’s non-resilience. The encroachment of protected areas and zones
which are rich in biodiversity cannot be allowed.

The new strategic plan needs to make greater emphasis on conservation’s local and ecosystem
planning as well as on the role and contribution of indigenous peoples and local communities.

Environmental Impact Assessments should no longer be pollution and destruction permit. They
should be assessed, and this and other complementary tools should be better developed.

3. Resource mobilization and financing

Parties should be clear and transparent by reporting their internal budget for harmful incentives
as well as the budget aimed at protecting biodiversity; this budget allocation should be reported
to CBD. The incorporation of clear legislation on these matters must be promoted.

Every Party should allocate at least 1 % of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to biodiversity; and
costs of biodiversity loss should be included in the GDP calculations.

There are, in the region, regional funds which support conservation projects and the sustainable
use of biodiversity that should be taken up as examples.

Mechanisms that allow access to resources by the civil society should be implemented. Young
people, women, vulnerable groups, indigenous peoples and local communities should be included.
There should be more transparency and accountability for support to comply with clear objectives.

On the other hand, many times Parties find it hard to have access to large scale projects due to the
technical difficulties involved. Therefore, smaller funds should be made available for local projects.

The CBD should call the World Bank, as well as all other international financial institutions, to
increase the strength of their environmental safeguards or to adopt them if they are lacking
safeguards.

08 BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
Taking into consideration the little progress made regarding Aichi Target 3, it is recommended
that Parties present a plan with a concrete road map to eliminate harmful incentives.

Incentives to industrial and/or productive matrixes that are allies in conservation should be promoted.

It is advisable to think about possible tax and/or financial benefits for companies that comply with
the conservation of the environment and with the commitments taken up in the CBD framework.
Options should be analyzed, such as the creation of specific taxes for sectors and industries that
have an impact on biodiversity and the environment.

A restauration fund for the damage caused, which is different to compensation, should be created.
In addition, truly dissuasive fines should be applied to prevent environmental damage.

It is imperative to change the approach of investment strategies towards different sectors such as
the energy area. In this regard, classical concepts to measure development and well-being such
as the GDP need to be modified, since they do not include the health sector nor the quality of the
food that is produced and consumed. It is imperative to abandon these schemes and to incorpo-
rate biodiversity’s different values, many of which do not have an economic valuation.

4. Human rights approach to conservation and sustainable use

of biodiversity
CBD must make greater efforts to strengthen territories legally. Some governments are under-
mining rights that have already been conquered. In several countries, free, prior and informed
consent is either manipulated or ignored; protected areas are entrenched in search for resource
exploitation and to build huge projects aimed at satisfying an overconsumption model rather
than at reducing poverty gaps.

There is strong criminalization of the protest, life risk, and there are mobs that take ownership of
the territories affecting biodiversity. The vulnerability and risk of park rangers, protectors of terri-
tories, indigenous peoples and local communities must be recognized and effectively addressed.
CBD should speak about this; it should deal with this issue.

It is recommended to take the Escazú Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation

and Access to Justice in Environmental Issues in Latin America and the Caribbean as a concrete
regional contribution to progress on this issue in the CBD framework and to make direct reference
to it at the substantiation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, given that it is a distinc-
tive contribution from the region.

CBD needs to make efforts to incorporate mechanisms to strengthen human rights into the new
strategic plan, including proposals such as the adoption of a new target related to the right to a
healthy environment.

A human rights approach to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity means enabling full
participation environments for the civil society at the CBD process. Something to be taken into
account is the incorporation of intergenerational rights, acknowledging that our current actions
or lack of action have impacts that will have to be faced by future generations.

Transnational corporations should follow the highest standards in environmental protection rather
than take advantage of weak legislations on this issue in developing countries, as is usually the case.

09 BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
 5. Implementation and compliance mechanism
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs)

NBSAPs must originate in the needs of the territories and communities which should be involved,
from the very moment of thinking how the consultation processes should be structured. There
should be updated mappings of key actors to ensure an improved, effective and broad participation.

Developing local consultations is needed, NBSAPs cannot only be made from the capital cities
or behind desks. NBSAPs should have territorial support. Consultations on the creation of EPANB
could incorporate technological tools to allow for e-contributions, therefore incorporating more
actors and facilitating processes, but they should not replace consultations in person. In order to
achieve this, resources should be transferred effectively to developing countries and institutions
in charge.

In order to be able to apply compliance and punishment measures, there should be strict criteria
among NBSAPs. Information should be shared among them, starting by regional processes.

NBSAPs information should be communicated in an effective manner and made accessible to the
population in general and to communities. In addition, the new strategic plan should be able to be
implemented from the territories through an ecosystem approach, considering that ecosystems
recognize no borders.

Compliance mechanism

It is urgent to have commitment compliance mechanisms that are immediate, effective and bind-
ing. Any “voluntary” commitment Parties take up cannot leave compliance gaps but rather be in
agreement with the pressing needs that arise from the current environmental crisis.

The need to quantify and define compliance indicators for each of the established targets is
emphasized, with specific criteria that promote compliance and progress at the national level.
Integrating these targets with other global platforms such as the Paris Agreement and the SDGs
can help in terms of promoting compliance.

Implementation mechanisms of rapprochement, complaint and denunciation open not only to

State Parties, but also to civil society are recommended. Strategically and in order to expedite
the implementation of this kind of measures, thought could be given to mechanisms, mainly
related to human rights, that may also apply sanctions in cases of non-compliance with the com-
mitments taken up in the CBD framework.

It is recommended that the CBD may have Special Rapporteurs to draft reports on specific issues.

Other mechanisms suggested to improve commitment implementation are compliance index-

es or rankings where the effort of the Parties in terms of biodiversity can be seen clearly and
comparatively.

The compliance and implementation mechanism or mechanisms used must include a clear sanc-
tion element in case of non-compliance. These sanctions must be related to economic punish-
ments or limitations on loans or financial resources due to lack of compliance.

It is suggested to incorporate in the formal process a system to take into account validation reports
created by civil society corroborating the information submitted by Parties in their national reports.

10 BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
CBD should promote the generation of independent committees that follow up on compliance
with the strategic plan at national and sub-national levels. These committees should be elected
democratically and should have a broad participation of actors. Government audits and similar
oversight bodies at the national and subnational levels are another important actor in this regard.

6. Communication, awareness-raising and information

Communication and awareness-raising

It was pointed out that every communication or awareness-raising initiative should first focus
on the appropriate processes, according to the needs, expectations and changes desired by the
actors involved.

Communication, education and awareness has to be developed through campaigns and strate-
gies with powerful messages that involve actors according to the local impact gradient. Aware-
ness and access to information are not enough. These campaigns and strategies should also be
aimed at influencing public policies; therefore, they should consider specific methods and tools to
include the necessary interlocutors. In this sense, and given the current environmental crisis, we
must clearly communicate the structural causes of the loss of biodiversity.

Developing accessible, clear, memorable and massive communication campaigns and tools is
needed. The SDGs are an example of this; also working with people and groups that specialize in
communication.

Local perspectives have to be taken into account for messages and to strike a balance to express
the negative side of the situation as well as the progress made and the possible solutions. It is im-
portant to recognize that information and knowledge arise, are transformed and appropriated in
the territory. Also, to identify spokespeople to carry messages and values including the leadership
of young people and children as key actors.

There are people with other values and different feelings, and it is necessary to get to them
because they may become allies in the biodiversity protection cause; to think about a way to
communicate biodiversity and its issues that may reach the “neighbour”. Along these lines, bi-
ological and cultural diversity has to be embraced, considering that it is helpful for society to
better understand the relevance and biodiversity, and, therefore, to reach other people who
might become allies.

Bonds between biodiversity conservation and urban population well-being need to be highlight-
ed, as well as the urban population’s responsibility of reducing its high level of consumption give
it generates pressure on nature. Communication campaigns should take into account the great
differences and asymmetries still present between rural and urban areas. The work in rural and
urban areas is different, it entails using the methods available with a language that suits each
of them.

To measure the effectiveness of the processes of communication, education and awareness, it

is urgent to incorporate qualitative and quantitative indicators that allow the measurement of
“soft” or non-economist emergencies. Several tools to be used were pointed out: popular plat-
forms similar to Netflix that reach massive audiences, user-friendly and recreational participa-
tory maps promoting the coordination of actions among actors who are in the territory. The
global initiative “Nature for all” was mentioned. It aims at people falling in love with nature and
it includes new actors and actions, with a focus on young people’s leadership. Cases such as con-

11 BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
victions for hunting endangered species have been used to raise awareness on poaching through
the media and street campaigns.

It is advisable to use existing tools, such as the CEPA kit, but also to include successful local experi-
ences, they exist and are very many, since this work in the territory would help to multiply effects.

Parties have a great responsibility in communicating to the population the Biodiversity Targets
and CBD Strategic Plan, public policies and actors related to them, as well as awareness-raising
materials that are developed as from the Convention. These contents should circulate among all
areas and should trickle down into other actors, mainly allies and message multipliers.

The fact that CBD and its contents are not well-known goes against its own efficiency and com-
pliance. Therefore, the CBD internal communication has to be strengthened, and its reports and
other products regionalized. A stronger role of the in supporting and advising Parties is needed. In
this regard, information provided should be timely, understandable and transparent. In addition,
it is advisable an effective coordination with other biodiversity-related conventions regarding
communication with the purpose of creating integrated messages, striving to avoid crossed and
contradictory communication.

In turn, the need to move from the environmental education concept into an eco-pedagogy con-
cept with the objective to develop a socioenvironmental thought was brought up.

Some slogans were created, such as “knowing to love and then to care of”; “it is today, it is here
and it is now”; “focus on people and not on species” and “it’s about love and not loss”.

Knowledge, innovation and traditional practices by indigenous and local communities and their
customary use of biological resources

Today there is more information about the issues that put pressure on biodiversity. However, Par-
ties should grant proper and timely resources to improve research, including networking, on nat-
ural components and populations.

Identifying that knowledge is not present only in academia. Knowledge takes place in the territo-
ries, it is produced and reproduced and it is related to biodiversity. In this regard, it is necessary to
protect territorial subjects where traditional/ancestral knowledge is; that genetic resources and
traditional knowledge are intrinsically linked. Also, weighing that indigenous, local and farming
communities have different kinds of knowledge, interests and relations with biodiversity, and that
it is necessary to articulate and come to an agreement regarding agendas and contexts.

Finally, rethinking Aichi Target 18 from a different angle is proposed: communities are not biodi-
versity’s employees, they conform a unit. Target 18 is an economic target, unrelated to social and
environmental well-being, rather relating well-being to a material perspective. Then, there was a
call to rethink the value of territory, where there is biodiversity but also there are traditional and
ancestral dimensions, etc.

12 BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
OTHER ISSUES

Technological arrangements
• Proposals for technological manipulation of the Earth’s ecosystems, such as geo-engi-
neering, engineering of populations and ecosystems (through gene drives and other tech-
nologies), present unacceptable risks for biological diversity and therefore, should not be
deployed. CBD should incorporate the issue of synthetic biology as an issue that should be
constantly reviewed in the CBD framework rather than just in their Protocols, given that
synthetic biology applications, including genomic editing and gene drives, have multiple
potential impacts on the three objectives of the Convention at socioeconomic level but
also regarding the way in which indigenous, peasant and local communities live, which
are not covered by their protocols.

• CBD should update an international biosafety and risk assessment framework that is
based on precaution and functional to assess risks presented by new technologies, in-
cluding gene editing, and that is able to assess the risks of socioeconomic and ecosystem
impacts before these technologies are deployed in countries at individual level. All new
technologies, especially gene drives, involve cross-border impacts, therefore, once de-
ployed, they will affect other parts of CBD.

• The importance of the moratorium on technological solutions is a great achievement

made by CBD, where civil society organizations involvement was highly relevant. It is an
achievement that should be communicated, reaffirmed and sustained.

13 BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
ANNEX

List of participants

ONG Country
Sobrevivencia Paraguay
CODES Paraguay
Instituto Gaia Brasil
Probioma Bolivia
Reacción Climática Bolivia
Alianza CDB* Bolivia
AIDA** Guatemala
Vida Silvestre Uruguay
Via Campesina* Argentina
Patagonia Natural Argentina
Fundación CAUCE Argentina
Taller Ecologista Argentina
CASA RIO Argentina
Foro del Mar Patagónico y Áreas de Influencia** Argentina
WCS Argentina Argentina
Fundación Biodiversidad Argentina
Bosques Nativos Argentinos para la Biodiversidad Argentina
Consorcio TICCA* Argentina
COECOCeiba Costa Rica
Guyra Paraguay
UICN Sur** Ecuador
Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental SPDA Perú
Nativa Bolivia
Tierra de Derechos Brasil
Costa Humboldt Chile
Fundación Natura Panamá
Amigos de la Tierra* Argentina
Centro Mexicano de Derechos Ambiental (CEMDA) México
Colectivo por la Autonomía (COA) y Red por la defensa de Maíz de Mexico México
Grain International* Argentina
FARN Argentina

* Organization with international reach

** Organization with regional reach

14 BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
 REGIONAL WORKSHOP
CONTRIBUTIONS BY NGO OF LATIN AMERICA
AND THE CARIBBEAN TO THE POST 2020
GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK

Buenos Aires, April 23 and 24, 2019.

BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020
CBD
ALLIANCE

BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOP
POST-2020